According to Politico:
And in "Fed Up," Perry, who has said he voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980, criticized Reagan from the right:
During the Reagan years of the 1980s, federal spending still doubled, numerous federal agencies expanded, and there was a proliferation of federal criminal laws. Only 12 of 94 programs the administration proposed to eliminate actually ended. And programs that were ‘scaled back’ simply returned in full force in the face of a relentless Democratic Congress ...
With this from Perry's own book, and his activism as a Democratic party senior official in Texas as head of Al Gore's 2000 campaign committee there how can there be any credibility in his efforts to portray himself as a genuine Tea Party centered candidate for president on the GOP ticket?
Heck, I voted Dem right up to Kerry before I saw the light, but I am not running for office and neither was I a major campaign official for the Dem's.
We have had enough of politicians running for office on one platform, and shifting once the main campaign gets under way, and shifting even further once in office (see Obama, Barack for example.)
Palin's speech in Iowa and the coda in New Hampshire, where she railed against politicians who are tied to big money, and advised she can't be bought, resonate with any amazing prescience in the light of the Politico article. With the big money boys backing Perry with $55,000,000 from a Superpac just how much of the common man will be part of his thinking? Palin on the other hand would run a grass roots campaign from the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment